After NASA lands on the moon and sets up a more permanent base there would it be better for someone else to oversee its development?

The next steps of Tourism and resource exploitation are not really part of NASA's goal so they might be done better by another organisation. I'm thinking of an international organisation to represent all the nations that may have interests there which would be able to coordinate private and government investment. A sort of Lunar caretaker to oversee its growth and deal with things that would allow space agencies like NASA, ESA and JAXA to concentrate on other things like getting to Mars and the rest of the solar system.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Some scientists and engineers have developed a robot already that can proudce solar cells out of lunar dust and install them too at the lunar surface. The robot does that while rolling along at the lunar surface.

This way nor humans are required to install energy equipment. That robot and the solar cells it produces never could provide sufficient energy and equipment for mining, tourism and any lunar industry I think - but it may be sufficient for a lunar station óf NASA.

If this would prove too for all other requirements of that permanent lunar NASA-station then everyone else will be left to himself regardless of private one or another country. This may mean sterility.

If I remember right that robot has been developed by scientists and engineers of NASA...

Now the ideas of how to provide radiation shielding seem to be higher sophisticated - I am not sure if they could be ISRU-produced by a robot. Sophisticated robotical macines may be required that are modifications and improvements of machines like those in earthian fabrics or especially in hall 54 of VW in Wolfsburg. In this case there will be no way other than to order such machines from the machine producers all over the world - NASA would have to involve private companies to get equipment on the moon that can produce radiation shielding equipment. The shielding technology only would be from NASA.

The private companies would have to develop the whole vertical production line from mining up to the production of the shielding equipment. Installation may be possible by robots again.

The alternative would be to produce the shielding equipment on Earth and to carry it to the moon - in this case again NASA seems to nedd no one else and evryone else would be left to himself.

The point where NASA is forced to use private assistance may be to get llunar ice. But it will be private assistance because countries and governments don't and can't produce machines and the like.

It seems to be a question of involvement of the privates - not of countries. And private space travels will act as a source of control because they may lead to private lunar stations.

The point I was making is that NASA will not want to get bogged down on the moon with running facilities there, once the major obsticles have been overcome and private industry starts to get involved it might be better for NASA to take a step back an allow someone else to organise logistics to keep it running. Whether or not that would be international depends on how much infrastructure exists from other countries and might work a bit like the ISS with partners having a say dependant upon how big a share of the structures they own.

For that matter the ISS could be operated in a similar way, NASA is already looking to off load responsibilities for cargo and possibly crew transfer, once private sector can do this there is no reason for NASA to be concerned with its running, they can book flights for cargo and their astronauts like any other country involved and leave the day to day running to someone else. This might develop a way of managing national and international assets that can be copied for other projects. An ISS management could arrange flights and charge all those using it (dependant upon their time aboard) the cost for reboosts and repairs which they would then pass on to who ever was doing the work.

An independant body would allow NASA and other agencies to push the frontiers and leave others to maintain and expand the assets that they create behind them. Things like power generation and exploration of lunar resources would work by national agencies being able to either put their own in place or if they preferred share projects/power with other agencies. All this could be coordinated by a third party which would minimise duplication.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Alright - then I think given the forecasted and estimated evolution and growth of private space travle and space activities the exploration and the power generation will be done by private companies - not by any agencies of countries, governments or third parties.

These agencies will do regulation and chanalizing - guiding it along something according to national requirements and interests which wil be lunar requirements and interests or civilisation requirements and interests here. These for the first time will be of scientific and/or mission-oriented nature - interplanetary missions, missions throughout the whole solar system - I suppose.

I wish I could agree with you--but we couldn't even get superconducting supercollider built here on earth with Gov't--due to in-fighting. I see no investors going to the moon unless Gov't has an installation already in place. Then they would be happy to plaster some signs on it--take a few pictures of the ads--and take all the credit.

Superconducting super-collider? It hasn't mentioned here until now as far as I can see. It's far to concrete to speak about them here. And what's preferred in general is power generation by solar cells.

And you take it the wrong way regarding the investors. When NASA starts to build a station at the moon then they will order experienced private companies to do what NASA can't do itself. And there will much equipment required Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman can't construct because that equipment is produced by an industry they don't belong to because they don't produce anything that industry offers.

So NASA will buy products and service from companies. The companies will make their prices to NASA and this price will cover the costs of travels of employees to the moon if employees of these companies will have to do work directly at the moon. This menas that these companies really will be at the moon - and they will controll part of the work there.

This will be valid also when a personal spaceflight entrepreneur takes toursist there and need hotels at the lunar surface.

This is what I have been speaking about. It's business and not simply investment -companies and not simply investors. It doesn't mean to move headquarters there or to found a company there.

So NASA will buy products and service from companies. The companies will make their prices to NASA and this price will cover the costs of travels of employees to the moon if employees of these companies will have to do work directly at the moon. This menas that these companies really will be at the moon - and they will controll part of the work there.

This is a good point, there may come a time when NASA, or other space agencies, will require skilled personnel that it doesn't have to work on the moon or in space. Will NASA start to train astonauts to do a wider range of tasks or possibly specialise in a specific task like fabrication of lunar habitats maybe, the alternative would be to train civilian workers to operate on the moon.

As an example this happens now with the UK armed forces. The UK employs private companies to set up communication links and relay stations, even in potentially dangerous locations. I know of at least one argument that went on between the UK Army and a civilian company who was responsible for comms systems. The civilian company had the contract to set up comms but the workforce were not about to go to areas where fighting was taking place due to liability and insurance issues. A soldier killed in action can expect his family to be taken care of by the government but a civilian who places himself knowingly in a dangerous environment (that is not his normal job) is not insured. Civilians were employed as comms technicians not soldiers. In the end the goverment agreed to treat them in the same way as soldiers or they would have had no comms, I believe the companies demanded danger payments which they passed on to their employees, at least those that decided to go.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Perhaps the companies that would have to send employees to the moon would demand private space travel companies to do that if such companies would have available lunar vehicles. If the ASP would be won in January 2010 such vehicles may be available in 2015... Of course - that's speculating but if this would be the future then a new market could evolve out of it: companies having employees specialized for work at the moon. These companies would offer their employees to work for others at the moon.

To end speculation now really - the last evolution could start if NASA does as you described the doing of the UK armed forces. The employees of those companies would have an advantage: experience with work on the moon...

Yes if space agencies have to buy in skilled workers for the moon or anywhere else then you will get companies specialising in this field, probably like deep sea diving companies operate now. And it makes sense that other companies will provide the transport where additional capacity is required.

NASA could operate like an oil company and contract out tasks that it doesnt consider core work, like gerneral crew transport, cargo logistics and fabrication. BP or ESSO dont build their own oil rigs or transport their oil crews, they hire companies to do that for them.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.